memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Template:FederationStarbases
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale I am sure this was made with the best of intentions, but with the existence of a Category for this information and an article containing this information, I don't think this template is necessary and is too ungainly to be useful.--31dot 22:18, March 29, 2011 (UTC) Discussion *'Object': Now that is has been slimmed down a little since it's original incarnation, I think it is a useful navigation aide when jumping between Federation starbases. Remember, this template doesn't include the deep space stations and named stations that aren't starbases so it's not an exact copy of the category. (Plus, I created it! :P) --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:54, March 29, 2011 (UTC) :There are many instances where the template is bigger than the article itself. That suggests to me that it's too big, even if "slimmed down".31dot 23:02, March 29, 2011 (UTC) ::conflict - I redirected Federation starbases to the category, since there really isn't a need for both a list and a category if the list doesn't do anything other then just list them, so there isn't an article anymore. That said, I'm not going to comment further on this one other than to say that the nav box still adds a staggering 95 links to every page. - 23:08, March 29, 2011 (UTC) :::If there's that much opposition to it, then it should probably be deleted, honestly a lot of these tables probably are not needed too much. Anyway, with what Archduk3 did, I agree with, I noticed that there seems to be a lot of "List of..." pages which are essentially the same thing seen in the matching categories (not that the list of pages haven't helped me from time to time, but still). Anyway, I would say either delete, modify into different types of templates (one for numbered, one for named, etc...) or do something like Wikipedia, make a collapsible table where browsers can click on "show" and expand it. --Terran Officer 23:43, March 29, 2011 (UTC) ::::May I also point out that Template:USCities and Template:US states are also big templates yet are still used. The USCities one is almost certainly the same size as this template. --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:34, March 30, 2011 (UTC) :::::I think TrekFan has a valid point: if we have a nav template for the giant list of US cities, then I don't see why size is the principal rationale for deletion. I believe the question is whether we prefer the category or nav bar style for the list of starbases. It does seem redundant to have both, yet I don't see any great harm. Very little info will be on most starbase pages, but the same is true for the cities. Re the "collapsible list": I'm not sure if that'd work on all browsers. I'm a mobile user and often have trouble with such things. Still, I'm rather indifferent, but those boxes have, on occasion been useful. Though seeing the list of starbases is a little dizzying, especially because, unlike the cities, I have no idea what most starbases are; I'd probably only actively look for one, rather than (pseudo-randomly) clicking on "starbase xxx" to examine it. (Btw, until now, I had no idea so many starbases existed in the canon!) Just my $/£/€0.02. ;) 15:49, March 30, 2011 (UTC) * My classic comment comes out here: Just because it exists elsewhere does not mean that it should here. It also does not mean that it should exist elsewhere. I'm, personally, not convinced that the US City template should exist. It was created and put onto pages in a similar manner to this one, and, unlike this one, nobody raised much of a fuss at the time. I, personally, do not see the point of this template. As I noted on the talk page, it essentially duplicates the category. At least the US Cities template does not duplicate a category, though, that template might be better served by replacing it with a category. -- sulfur 16:14, March 30, 2011 (UTC) :I'll second Sulfur's comments. I also think Cepstrum is right about its usage and I think that it's not the sort of thing that needs a template, as most users will seek out a specific starbase and are not interested in other ones, and if they are, they should use the category. The same would go for the US Cities template.--31dot 16:47, March 30, 2011 (UTC) ::I, too, see your reasoning, Sulfur. (Sorry TF!) I wasn't arguing that, b/c the US cities template existed, this should, too; rather, I was trying to say that the rationale for deletion shouldn't solely be size. Other than "looking kinda cool" (depending on your skin), the boxes mostly duplicate categories. And I like categories, b/c I know how to add stuff/link to them, whereas with nav boxes I don't. ;) Seriously, I've found the ability to link to a list of, say, scientists, is really useful (even more so when they comprise sub-categories). But I thank TrekFan (and others) for putting in so much effort to improve MA. :) 17:57, March 30, 2011 (UTC) ::A comment about the US cities template: IMO it should definitely be either a nav box or a category (or maybe just "Cities"/"Earth cities"), for it caused me to see many articles I wouldn't have otherwise known existed (and then try to "improve" them)! 17:57, March 30, 2011 (UTC) ::::It's really not my intention to be awkward here, but if we are going to delete this because it essentially duplicates a category, then wouldn't we also need to delete Template:Earth languages and Template:Transwarp? These are only two examples but I'm sure there are more. I'm not saying these templates aren't useful - they are - but following the same logic (copies the category), these would have to be deleted aswell, would they not? What's more, new or casual users (or most importantly, those who simply read MA articles) may not understand the category system and use the template they can see right there on the page as navigation between related articles. In this respect, the templates are a great, user-friendly tool that anyone can use to navigate. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:52, March 31, 2011 (UTC) :::::I think the reasoning here should be a combination of issues, not a single one: "if the nav box is several times as big as the whole article content AND it duplicates a category, this may be a reason for not wanting it". Another issue that may play a part in this is the "expected click-through rate" (or however you want to call it): if most starbase articles are just two-sentence descriptions of their only appearance - do we really expect many users to read several of them in succession? Or do we expect this to happen "rarely enough" so that the trade-off between "less clutter" and "slower navigation" works in our favor? -- Cid Highwind 16:14, March 31, 2011 (UTC) :I don't think the category is as user unfriendly as you(TrekFan) make it out to be, especially with the numerous short articles about starbases. Still, even for the alleged people who might not understand it, a "See also" link to the original Federation starbases article(the list) would be just as helpful as a template, and take up less space.--31dot 03:55, April 3, 2011 (UTC) * Comment - The absurdity of the size of this can be seen here. The external link gets lost below the template. -- sulfur 12:20, April 14, 2011 (UTC) From Template talk:FederationStarbases I've created a navbar template for Federation starbases since one didn't seem to exist. I'll start implementing it on the relevant pages, unless anyone has any objections? --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:01, March 29, 2011 (UTC) :When there's over a hundred links, or even fifty for that matter, a separate page and category is a much better solution than a giant nav box on every page. - 19:10, March 29, 2011 (UTC) Oh...I just thought it would be a good idea, since it's one of those underlying things of Star Trek - "We're off to Starbase x now." Is it that bad to keep it? :/ --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:16, March 29, 2011 (UTC) :The nav boxes are generally there to ease navigation between articles that are related when there isn't a category or list page devoted to the subject, beyond a disambiguation. This box completely replaces Federation starbases, contains the same information that's in the category, and is huge to boot. I'm not going to remove it, but I still think a template shouldn't add more results to a "what links here" check then the default, which the last time I looked was 50. - 19:39, March 29, 2011 (UTC) I do see your point. I just thought it would be beneficial since all the Starbases are obviously linked together by a number system and it does help with ease of navigation between them when looking at a specific Starbase page, not just the category. You think we could keep it as is for now and see how it goes? If we get lots of objections, we can delete it? I'd hate to just delete it now cos I have put a bit of time into it and my intentions were good, I can assure you. Plus, and this is just my opinion, I don't think it looks that big. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:43, March 29, 2011 (UTC) :Well, there are a few things beyond just the massive size of this, and it is massive. First, not all of the named stations are starbases. Second, removing the Deep Space stations would allow for a K-7 to be added to a separate template. Third, there really isn't any point for a list page if this is here, so that should be deleted and redirected to the category. Also, please try not to add caps in the middle of a template, as "Federation Starbases" is not the same as "federation starbases". - 20:04, March 29, 2011 (UTC) I just added the information from the list page, but I guess I could remove the named ones from it and move the Deep Space stations to another template as you suggested. As for the name, I just used Template:EnterpriseHelmsmen as my "inspiration" so I didn't even think there would be a problem there. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:23, March 29, 2011 (UTC) I split the template up in the Sandbox to the numbered and deep space stations. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:31, March 29, 2011 (UTC) ::I really don't see the point of duplicating the category in the template. Should we just remove the category now, since the template covers it all? -- sulfur 20:37, March 29, 2011 (UTC) In my edited templates, I have split them up and removed the link to the list. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:40, March 29, 2011 (UTC) With the creation of by Archduk3, I have now amended this template to show only the numbered starbases. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:49, March 29, 2011 (UTC) :::I am sure this was made with the best of intentions, but with the existence of a Category for this information and an article containing this information, I don't think this template is necessary and is too ungainly to be useful. I was going to put up a deletion tag and start a discussion there, but when I did it seemed to label every article with the template as a deletion candidate.--31dot 21:52, March 29, 2011 (UTC) Just for future reference, this discussion is continued at: Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Template:FederationStarbases --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:48, March 29, 2011 (UTC) Admin resolution *'Deleted'. - 23:46, May 17, 2011 (UTC)